Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4649RE: [Raw Food] Hi I am New

Expand Messages
  • Peter Gardiner
    Aug 24, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Most certainly you have not upset me. Academically, scientifically and
      in dieting knowledge you are my superior.

      I share your love of the truth although I perceive the truth as having a
      shifting focus. Thus I pitch my efforts in varying directions to
      explore and test my perceptions.

      This makes truth even more important to me as I spend most of my life
      pursuing it. Moreover it changes. And the truth often starts with the
      right question. "What should I be eating?" is always a good question.
      The answer and the truth vary in accordance with individual

      On food combining, I confess I do the minimum of it. Recipes and
      smoothies I consider as being appropriate for those who are either not
      raw foodists or are in transition. However, I whip up mixtures in a
      juicer for guests as a pastime. I even throw an apple into a vegetable
      mixture to take the bitterness of a pure vegetables and make a
      concoction more palatable. Purists would abhor my heresy and hypocrisy,
      especially as I do no more than taste the concoctions I serve.

      The upshot is that my guests enthuse about fruit and vegetables. Is that
      breaking the rules is sometimes "right"?

      I look forward to reading more of your postings, Fred.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: fred lieberman [mailto:fred_lieberman@...]
      Sent: 01 September 2003 14:02
      To: rawfood@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [Raw Food] Hi I am New

      Hi Peter,

      If I have upset you and others, that was not my intension. I was upset
      with what I read and expressed my feelings.

      I have done a lot of things in my life, which includes being a farmer,
      special ed. teacher, even teaching Astronomy and Nutrition on a college
      level. I am scientifically oriented. Part of my education includes a
      BA in Chemistry and a MS in Biology. My MS major was Human Nutrition.
      I was in private practice for a decade as a Clinical Nutritionist, but
      never really practiced nutrition. My clients came in with complaints
      that no one could solve, so I ended up being a diagnostician and solving
      them. The most common causes of their complaints were reactions first
      to chemicals then to foods. For about three years, I held workshops
      training professionals (doctors, chiropractors, nurses, dentists,
      nutritionists...) and non-professionals (mothers whose children were
      labeled LD, ED, ADD...) how to identify and address these issues. I
      have even seen the energy coming out of my hands accelerate the healing

      What was the name of individual in Greek mythology who was in search for
      the one person who did not lie or distort the truth? Am I correct to
      assume that truth is important to you Peter? Truth is very important to
      me. That is where I am at this point in my life. When I do not hear it
      especially from so called experts, I get annoyed, even angry. I have
      been lied to all my life and I cannot always step aside and say: "So
      what." Maybe as I feel better, the distortions of others will no longer
      affect me.

      I am not putting Shelton down for his contributions to health during the
      time he made the contributions.

      What upset me were the inaccuracies stated on the web page.

      Distortion of the facts and perpetuation of myths upsets me. The three
      best examples of this are fluoride, cholesterol, and vitamins.

      Fluoride is a protoplasmic poison. It is as toxic as lead. Large
      populations are being forced to consume this substance all their life.
      The dangers far out way the so called minor benefits, which in reality,
      do not exit. To me, this is absurd. The myth began in the late 1930's
      by Gerald Cox, PhD, who worked for a branch of ALCOA. Fluoride is a
      byproduct of aluminum production.

      The cholesterol hypothesis can best be described as an experimentally
      generated disease. Hence perpetuation of the myth. The lesions created
      by the experiments do not represent the true pathology as it naturally
      occurs in humans. I read the experiments from the medical journals. The
      experiments are totally invalid. People are told to go on dangerous
      diets, dangerous medication, even niacin (which by the way is not a
      vitamin) to lower cholesterol levels.

      Over the counter vitamins are not vitamins. They are not the co-enzymes
      which bring life to the enzymes in our body. Biochemically speaking,
      structurally speaking, they are not in the right form to be considered a
      co-enzyme. In fact, B1 as we find it in enriched flour and many vitamin
      pills (thiamine mononitrate) as well as thiamine HCl cannot be converted
      to the co-enzyme by our body.

      I too had my guru's. They have all fallen by the waste side. None exist
      anymore. None of them chose to see the whole picture nor the individual
      as an individual.

      If my crime is not willing to accept untruths and distortion of the
      truth, then I am guilty.

      This is what I read on the website and this is what upset me.

      The web site http://chetday.com/fcnecess.html

      "...it important that we exercise some care not to take into the stomach
      at the same time foods requiring different and incompatible media...

      "Different Foods Require Different Digestive Tasks
      It is a fundamental fact in chemistry that alkalies and acids are
      opposites; that they neutralize each other. It is a fact in physiology
      that all starchy foods digest in an alkaline medium and the
      starch-splitting enzyme of the mouth (ptyalin or salivary amylase) is
      destroyed by acid, even a mild acid. Therefore, if acids are taken with
      starches, starch digestion is suspended. If breads or cereals or
      potatoes are eaten with berries or with citrus fruits, or with other
      acid-bearing foods, the digestion of these starches is delayed.

      The stomach is always acidic. If it is not acidic, you will get sick or
      are sick. The stomach is not the place where starches are supposed to be
      digested (hydrolyzed). The pancreatic juices do that in the small

      The purpose of acid in your stomach is to destroy microorganism, begin
      the digestion of protein, indirectly aid in B12 absorption (intrinsic
      factor production), and extract the minerals from the foods we eat.
      Protein signals the stomach to produce hydrochloric acid. Without the
      acid, none of the above will happen.

      With the above strategy, how did he expect to extract minerals from the
      grains? Since all food contains microorganisms, how was he going to
      prevent the wrong culture from getting started in the GI tract?

      "Eating Protein and Starches Together Begets Indigestion
      It is a fact of physiology that proteins require an acid medium for
      their digestion in the stomach. When proteins are eaten, acid is
      secreted to enable the enzyme, pepsin, to begin the work of protein
      digestion. Now, it is not possible for two processes, that of starch
      digestion requiring an alkaline medium for its digestion, and that of
      protein digestion requiring an acid medium for its accomplishment, to
      both go on in the same stomach at the same time, with any great
      efficiency. The rising acidity of the stomach will neutralize the
      saliva, destroy the salivary amylase, and bring starch digestion to a

      That is exactly what is supposed to happen.

      "If no protein is taken with the starch, no acid is poured into the
      stomach and starch digestion proceeds on schedule.

      In a health person, the stomach is always acidic. Otherwise, we run the
      risk of an infection. The stomach is not the place where starch should
      be digested. It occurs in the small intestine.

      "A Fundamental Rule
      The application of this fact of the physiology of digestion is plain:
      Eat starch foods at separate meals from acid foods and foods requiring
      acid in their digestion.

      Perpetuating the myth

      "Acid Indigestion Arises From Wrong Combinations

      I do not get indigestion. That means this statement is not universally
      true. I have gotten heartburn from cottonseed oil (pesticide residues)
      found in certain foods. I avoid those foods.

      In over a decade of seeing clients, I have never seen anyone with
      heartburn nor indigestion ever have a problem with combinations. It was
      always due to a chemical in a specific food they ate or a hiatal hernia.
      Once the first was avoided and the second was corrected (without
      surgery), the symptoms disappeared.

      "Retarded digestion favors fermentation and putrefaction of the foods

      Fermentation you want. That is how we obtain certain vitamins in our GI
      tract. Microorganisms in our digestive tract exist in a symbiotic
      relationship with us. We give them the environment and they support us.

      Putrefaction or rotting of foods can only occur in the presence of the
      wrong type of bacteria. (Check Louis Pasteur - 1822-1895)

      Wrong Food Combining Responsible For Much Suffering

      Not true. Weston Price (DDS) in the mid to late 20's proved it was
      processed foods. By 1930, our soils were depleted of minerals (Check the
      Empty Harvest by Anderson and Jensen). Pre-WWII, reactions to foods then
      to chemicals were major causes of illness. (Check out The Pulse Test -
      Arthur Coca, MD; and T. Randolph, MD, Father of Clinical Ecology).
      After WWII, we began to inhale and ingest large amounts of pesticides,
      fumigants, formaldehyde, plasticizers, hydrocarbons, chlorine, fluoride,
      and other toxic chemicals. In our current time frame, the chemicals we
      are exposed to are the major causes of our illness, not wrong food

      My mentors taught me that each person is different. One life style does
      not fit all condition and individuals. The person in front of me has all
      the answers. That is the way I treated each client I saw. In the 13
      years of seeing over 1000 clients and many who were not clients,
      performing over 48,000 individualized tests, the one conclusion I can
      state from experience is: the major cause of illness in our times is an
      exposure to one or more chemicals which our body is rejecting. These
      substances should not be there in first place.


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
    • Show all 53 messages in this topic